Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/25/2001 10:50:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/29/2001 6:56:08 AM EDT by drjeffallen]
Hey Guys,

I have a Ruger 10/22 and under the assault rifle definition {see bottom of post] this 10/22 would be considered an assault rifle because is has:

1. A detachable magazine;
2. a folding stock (working); and
3. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

Since I bought this weapon at a pawn shop a year ago, I don't have any idea wether the laws apply because I don't know when it was manufactured or its history.

So.....how do I track it down? Suggestions. I feel that an lot of people are in this same situation and might be able to use this groups combined knowledge. I can post additional information as needed.

Basic Assault Rifle law:

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of of the following:

(i) a folding or telescopic stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

Thanks for the help!
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:00:00 PM EDT
You need to contact Ruger and ask them when your serial numbered rifle was made into a complete rifle. Since the folder was on there already when you bought it.. if you find out it's a preban serial number you should be ok. If it's not a preban then you need to take the folder off or weld it in the open position etc.


John
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 12:10:11 AM EDT
Well if you REALLY want to pick nits, then technically the folding stock would have to have been installed prior to the ban as well. However, I seriously doubt that it would get that far if the serial number checks out, too much trouble to go through.
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 7:01:44 AM EDT
RESOLVED!!!!!

I called Ruger's Records Department (as suggested) and they looked it up in less than a minute.

According to the serial number, It's a pre-ban gun.....it made it under the line by about 3 months.

Thanks for the help!

Link Posted: 11/29/2001 7:58:55 AM EDT
Dr. Jeff -

FishKepr is correct - the date the gun was manufactured is only half of the answer. The real key is finding out (and being able to document) when the gun was first put into an "assault rifle" configuration; that is, when was the folding stock and pistol grip added. If those features were added after 9-13-94 its a post ban. Also, because of the way the law is worded, the fact that a gun is pre-ban is a defense and must be proved by the the person in possession of the firearm, so having proof or some sort of evidence of when those features were added to the gun is important.
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 8:49:23 AM EDT
I have no idea when the stock was put on the gun...I bought it at a pawn shop. Is there a way to track it down??????
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 8:51:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/29/2001 8:48:25 AM EDT by SouthernShark]

Originally Posted By shaggy:
FishKepr is correct - the date the gun was manufactured is only half of the answer. The real key is finding out (and being able to document) when the gun was first put into an "assault rifle" configuration; that is, when was the folding stock and pistol grip added. If those features were added after 9-13-94 its a post ban. Also, because of the way the law is worded, the fact that a gun is pre-ban is a defense and must be proved by the the person in possession of the firearm, so having proof or some sort of evidence of when those features were added to the gun is important.




You know I hear these arguments from time to time. All I can say is "What a load of Crap." If you bought a pre-ban gun and it comes to you with a folding stock on it, then do not give it any more thought. Only a duncer would actively try to seek out and document when a folding stock was put onto the gun. The burden of proof is on ATF to show that:
1) You have an illegal firearm.
2) You knew that you had an illegal firearm.

Prong two is going to be tuff isn't it????? Prong 1 is tuff too. ATF would have to PROVE that:
1) A stock was put on after the ban. How do they know when a stock was put on it?? They don't do they?
2) That no stock had ever been put on before than ban. If it was EVER an assault rifle then it is always an assault rifle. How do they do that?????? You tell me since you have all this information about ATF busting people on this issue.

Now changing it yourself is a different story and I wouldn't do it. I would not buy a gun either that someone told me that they had changed after the ban. But if I got a pre-ban gun with a folder on it and I was told that it was legit, then I wouldn't worry about it.


-SS
Link Posted: 11/29/2001 9:36:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SouthernShark:
Originally Posted By shaggy:
You know I hear these arguments from time to time. All I can say is "What a load of Crap." If you bought a pre-ban gun and it comes to you with a folding stock on it, then do not give it any more thought. Only a duncer would actively try to seek out and document when a folding stock was put onto the gun. The burden of proof is on ATF to show that:
1) You have an illegal firearm.
2) You knew that you had an illegal firearm.

-SS



SS -

I suggest you read the law again, carefully. Any person who has knowingly transfers, manufactures, or possesses of ANY weapon that fits the statutory definition of an "assault rifle" as per 18 USC 922(v)(1), is guilty of a felony. The following subsection, 18 USC 922(v)(2), provides a defense to the charge based upon the lawful possession of the statutorily defined SAW prior to the date of enactment, but the burden of proof is on the defendant. The gov't is not under a burden to disprove any and all possible defenses. See US v. Gonzales (5th Circuit)and US v. Just (8th Circuit).

Now, as to the required mens rea the gov't merely has to show you knew the weapon you had possession of had certain features - bayo lug, flash supressor, telestock. They don't have to prove you knew the weapon was in an illegal configuration. Not too difficult when its apparent even from the most casual inspection. Knowledge of the law or that those features made the weapon into an illegally configered weapon is not necessary. See US v. Staples.

At this point, BATF isn't going to any great lengths to enforce the law as stringently as they obviously could, but don't expect that to continue forever.
Top Top